So... what's the penalty for violating this anti-bullying law? Because I'm pretty sure that if some teeny-bopper posse gets a month in juvie for shaming a girl because the glitter on her face isn't expensive enough or whatever, it's not exactly going to make them into well-adjusted members of society in the future. And if we're sheltering teenagers to that extent, god help them when they go into customer service.

The law was apparently passed because the school system turned a blind eye to actual beatings, though. Maybe if they penalized school administrators for pulling that shit? Exempting hearsay, as that apparently does need to be specifically outlined these days?

In any case, bullying should be handled by the school, not the gorram legal sytem.

Yep. Whack 'em over the nose. Usually figuratively - I didn't think any ideological battle against the reigning clique in eighth grade was a battle wasted, which made for a miserable year as I hadn't quite got the hang of the whole emotional control deal, but also inspired the more put-upon members of the clique to break away. And generally speaking, the best way to put a minor in their place is to tell their parents - a suspension is effective because it conveys to them that it's serious business. But if they're all about the physical intimidation and regard suspensions as vacations, yep: literally bitch-slap them, or get someone of sufficient brawn to do it for you. Beats expulsion in terms of the punishment you have to endure and the chance that these guys will end up as decent people.

Well, speaking as someone who considers himself an anti-bullying advocate, generally speaking existing guidelines can handle most cases. Where anti-bullying laws/measures need to aim, is getting those guidelines enforced. In this way, what's needed is measures that punish administrators for not taking bullying incidents seriously.

Actually that's wrong. An incident isn't really a problem. The problem is when it's a sustained campaign of social and emotional intimidation.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

So... can anybody dig up what the law actually says? Because if it is the admins' butts on the line, and if "my word against yours" situations are ruled out, then I guess I'll start hewing to the line of the OP.

Okay. So it was pretty much one of those useless "let's set a nebulous goal sometime" laws to begin with, meaning (school boards being school boards) that six months from now, the bullying situation in Michigan will be exactly the same, and the loophole won't amount to much either.

It just means they can't incorporate moralistic bullying into the useless bureaucratic chair-shuffling this law mandates over the next two years. (School boards are not going to do anything that will make PTA meetings markedly more irritating, which takes all the concrete policies off the table right there.) Not a big concern.

Less than one month after a local gay teen took his own life after allegedly being tormented at his high school, a proposed change in a Tennessee law could protect students who engage in anti-gay bullying if they do so for religious reasons.

As local news channel WSMV is reporting, the proposed law change by state lawmakers would allow students to speak out against homosexuality without punishment if that's what their religious beliefs call for. The bill is reportedly a top priority for the conservative Family Action Council of Tennessee — as the Chattanooga Times Free Press notes, the group's December newsletter says it hopes "to make sure [the law] protects the religious liberty and free speech rights of students who want to express their views on homosexuality."

Added conservative activist David Fowler, a former Republican state senator who is now Family Action Council president: "The purpose is to stop bullying, not create special classes of people who are more important than others."

Still, many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community activists, as well as local student groups, have cited the recent case of Jacob Rogers, who took his own life in December after friends say he was subjected to anti-gay remarks at his high school, in arguments against the law change. Leaders of the LGBT advocacy group Tennessee Equality Project contend the legislation would allow students to hide their irrational biases behind an extreme religious belief, according to the Associated Press.

"This kind of legislation can send a message that it's ok to hate and we'll even give you religious sanction for it," Tennessee Equality Project official Chris Sanders tells WSMV. "What if one student calls another one a sinner, or a sodomite or says you're perverted or you're unnatural or you are going to hell? That's where it gets really dicey."

Meanwhile, Fowler reportedly blamed Rogers' death on the student's struggles with alcohol and drug abuse, as well as an eating disorder, according to Nashville Scene.

The Family Action Council of Tennessee (FACT) is using the suicide of Jacob Rogers — who was bullied relentlessly for being gay — to promote state legislation that would protect bullies who harass other students for their sexual orientation. The “license to bully” bill, HB 1153, was actually introduced last year, but FACT is hoping it will make headway in this new legislative session. Mirroring similar language that was recently proposed in Michigan, the bill creates specific protections for students who share any “religious, philosophical, or political views” that are “unpopular,” regardless of their consequences to the learning environment:

“Creating a hostile educational environment” shall not be construed to include discomfort and unpleasantness that can accompany the expression of a viewpoint or belief that is unpopular, not shared by other students, or not shared by teachers or school officials.

The policy shall not be construed or interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students and shall not prohibit their expression of religious, philosophical, or political views; provided, that such expression does not include a threat of physical harm to a student or damage to a student’s property.

The bill is unabashedly designed to ensure that anti-LGBT bullying persists in the school system, as it specifically eliminates any protections or education that might help curb such harassment:

Harassment, intimidation, or bullying prevention task forces, programs, and other initiatives formed by school districts, including any curriculum adopted for such purposes, shall not include materials or training that explicitly or implicitly promote a political agenda, make the characteristics of the victim the focus rather than the conduct of the person engaged in harassment, intimidation, or bullying, or teach or suggest that certain beliefs or viewpoints are discriminatory when an act or practice based on such belief or viewpoint is not a discriminatory practice as defined in 4-21-102(4).

The mindset behind this bill flies in the face of data that shows the presence of LGBT-inclusive anti-bullying policies, supportive staff, and Gay-Straight Alliances all help minimize bullying. In addition to this bill, the Tennessee legislature will also reconsider the infamous “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which prevents teachers and staff from providing any educational support about LGBT identities.

FACT’s outright endorsement of anti-gay bullying is horrifying, but not surprising. Like many small conservative organizations, FACT is mostly a one-man operation, and its president, David Fowler, regularly condemns anything related to LGBT equality. He personally helped script debate on last year’s bill that banned all municipal nondiscrimination protections throughout the state of Tennessee, disguising the discriminatory intent of the law with economic rhetoric. Fowler also ran transphobic ads opposing Nashville’s nondiscrimiantion protections and objected when insurer Blue CrossBlue Shield instituted similar corporate policies.

More than any of his past efforts, Fowler’s call for more bullying makes it clear his motives are malicious and have little to do with religious freedom or any other benefits for the state of Tennessee.

However, I question the need for anti-bullying legislation at all. Are they just setting public school policy? Because if they're actually creating a state-wide law against bullying, to be enforced against minors...I'm not sure that's the right decision. Is it really going to help anyone if a bullied child takes the bullying child to court? It won't make the victim any friends, and it won't make the bully well-adjusted.

The amendments they've made were idiotic. But if this bill's what I think it is, and not merely a memo dictating what the policy on bullying should be to the schools of Michigan, it shouldn't (IMO) have been warped. It should have been directly opposed.

This seems a whole lot like a violation of free speech. There are realms of bullying which aren't hate speech. Violence and actual hate speech are already illegal. What else was this law designed to ban?

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

I don't mean to attack you, really, but the problem is a lack of understanding of what bullying actually is. Personally, I think the laws have some good (mandatory reporting up the chain is important), but there's a lot which really is more symbolic than anything.

But maybe what's needed is a symbol.

Most people, when they think of bullies, they think of Nelson Muntz from The Simpsons. You know, the big bruiser, but really has low self-esteem or is covering up for home problems. In those cases, you can deal directly with the bully and generally fix the issue. This type of bullying, again generally speaking is pretty easy to deal with and is usually not the big problem we're talking about.

The problem that anti-bullying activists are trying to deal with by and large is with what is called social bullying. The problem with this is that it's usually not just one person. It's less about the bully...generally these types of bullies are "well-adjusted", and quite frankly are normal and even successful. The bigger problem is that it's VERY difficult for bullied students in these circumstances to get relief.

Why?

The school administration likes the bullies more. It's as simple as that. THAT is where these laws are aimed.

It's why, if you read the article above, what's needed is structural things, such as supportive staff and the ability for kids outside the normal status spheres to create their own social support systems, and that's one of these things that these laws try and address.

It's not about cracking down on what the kids do. It's about cracking down on what the adults see as acceptable behavior. In short, overt social stratification is NOT acceptable.

Edit: Not so much about prosecuting them as much as it is about setting a framework so administrators know what their responsibilities really are.

edited 4th Jan '12 9:00:23 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

The system doesn't know you right now, so no post button for you. You need to Get Known to get one of those.

Community

Tropes HQ

TVTropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy